HAVE been building.

inclined to think that the active progressive form also has a similar origin, and that the word in ing here, as in the other case, is the verbal noun. and not (as seems to be tacitly admitted by the grammarians) the participle. We believe that this tense form, as it is now considered, has arisen from the frequent combination of the verbal with the tenses of the verb to be as a noun and preposition modification. (See § 81: 18.) The preposition here used was also ɑ, which, as in the other case, has been retrenched in the language of books, and of the educated classes. The use of the preposition still lingers with the uneducated classes, among whom we may often trace the origin, and find the explanation of forms of speech, when it might be difficult to discover any light by researches in our written literature. There is nothing more common at the present day among the less educated, than to say I am a coming, I am a going, I am a thinking, He is a staying with his friends, &c. By way of illustration we give an extract from Bulwer's "My Novel, or Varieties of English Life,” which, we believe, represents fairly the dialect of the uneducated classes (at least, so far as regards the expression in question), not in a single locality alone, but in most places where the English language is spoken.

"The gallus!' answered Solomons-" he be a goin to have it hung from the great elm tree. And the Parson, good man, is a quotin Scripter agin it-you see he's a takin off his gloves, and a puttin his two hans together,'" &c.

In this form of expression, used by that class with which the genuine idiomatic constructions of a language remain generally longest, and often least adulterated, we think, we discover the origin of what is called the active progressive tense. If our conjecture is right, the active and passive forms have come to coincide, not by our ancestors' rudely usurping the same participle passively which was already used actively, but by taking after the tenses of the verb to be a modification, consisting of a preposition and verbal noun, for two distinct purposes. The coincidence of the two forms seems to have been perfectly accidental, and not the result of violently straining a form of speech from its established and legitimate use to a new, and very dissimilar, if not opposite, use. The whole ambiguity, if this explanation is admitted, arises from the fact that the verbals in ING are employed to express both an action and a condition. Building, for example, expresses both the action of the builder and the condition of the house, while the builder is erecting it.

After all we have said, the ambiguity still remains, whatever way we choose to explain the origin of these tense forms. But in any case, in which the passive progressive is ever employed, the ambiguity disappears when the proposition is completed. It is only the partial predicate consisting of the verb to be, and the verbal in ing which presents ambiguity. When the subject of the proposition is presented, or the objective modification necessary to the active form, there is no more uncertainty in reference to the sense. The architect is building a house, can never be mistaken for a passive form,

nor The house is building, for an active form; because a house cannot perform the action of building. The same may be said of the Man is writing a letter, and The letter is writing. And so, of all cases in which any one who understands the language would think of employing the passive progressive tenses. Whenever the same word might serve as subject noun both of the active and passive form of a verb, it becomes improper to employ the passive progressive forms exhibited in the table. It would not, for example, be allowable to use the expression, The man is killing, in a passive sense, because the same subject may serve for the active form. Here the new passive progressive has the advantage. The expression, The man is being killed, does not lie exposed to the same objection.

If a less objectionable form of expression had been invented, as a substitute for the old form, we should have accepted it thankfully, as removing even the appearance of ambiguity, and extending the use of the passive to cases in which the old form cannot, with propriety, be used. But as the matter now stands, we think that all who would aim at purity and elegance of diction, will eschew all forms of the passive progressive, and in all possible cases express their meaning by the active form. Instead of saying, A house is building, or A house is being built in such a street, we should prefer to say, They are building, or Somebody is building a house in such a street, employing the pronoun they indeterminately, if the parties building are not known by When the party who builds is known, it is best for all purposesfor securing perspicuity, elegance, vigor, and liveliness of expression-to make the name of the party the subject noun, and use the active form.

name.

We may here notice, as having connection with this subject, that there is a difference in the nature of the actions expressed by verbs and by verbal words, which, under certain circumstances, influences the choice of the tense form employed in our language. Some actions are, from their nature, incapable of indefinite continuation. They are either momentary in their duration, or completed in a limited time, whether longer or shorter. Other actions are, on the contrary, in their nature indefinitely continued, or habitual. Now, in the use of the former class, we have often occasion to distinguish between action completed and action incomplete; for example, between the sense expressed by The architect built a house, and The architect was building a house; The house was built, and The house was building, or in progress of construction. Building, writing, reading, ploughing, &c., and most words which express external acts, are of the first class. Those which express continuous movements of the mind, or habitual acts, are of the second class; as, loving, fearing, hating, &c., and living, dwelling, &c. Such of these latter verbs, as are active, are very seldom (some of them perhaps never) used in the progressive forms active, and none of them, we think, can be used with propriety in the progressive form passive. Such as are neuter, are more rarely than other verbs employed in the progressive form. The reason is, that, the action being in its nature continuous, we find no occasion

to distinguish progressive from completed action, or, rather, that in all forms these verbs express an action in its own nature progressive, and requiring no grammatical indication of this fact. When I knew that man he LOVED to read poetry and fiction. Here is continuous and progressive action. The action of loving, though complete in one sense, is not indicated by this expression to be finished; the contrary is inferred from the nature of the action, which is capable of indefinite continuation in its complete state. The proposition expresses a continuous or habitual occupation of the man's mind. On the contrary, if we wish to express the continuous occupation or engagement of a man in building a house, we cannot express it in the same way. We must, for example, say, When we knew that man, he was building a house, if we intend to express the manner in which he was then occupied, not When we knew that man, he built a house. If I wish to express that building was his habitual occupation, I can do it by a past tense, He was a builder. Observe, also, we can never say passively, The reading of poetry and fiction was loving; we must say was loved. A progressive form passive, is wholly unnecessary to this class of verbs. So in regard of neuter verbs, we say, He LIVED in the city, when I knew him, because the action is in its own nature continuous. We can here say also, He was LIVING in the city when I knew him, but the other is the more usual form of expression.

The facts here noticed account for the coincidence on some occasions of our past tense with the imperfect tense of other languages. He lived, or He dwelt in the country when I knew him, because the living or dwelling is habitual and not indicated as finished, would be expressed by the imperfect tense in Latin, French, &c.—in all languages which have a proper imperfect tense. In the same manner, He loved the reading of poetry, when I was acquainted with him, would also be expressed by the imperfect. Except in the use of this kind of verbs, our past tense never coincides with the imperfect of other languages.

65. OF DEFECTIVE VERBS. (1) We may here notice a class of verbs, which have been called by the grammarians defective, because they fail in certain tenses, either simple or compound. We have noticed the chief of these among the auxiliaries. We subjoin a list of the whole class. (2) They all fail, or are defective, in the compound tenses, because they have neither infinitives nor participles. They have, therefore, only the two simple tenses.

65. (1) Describe the defective verbs. (2) In what tenses do these verbs all fail, and

for what reason? (3) Repeat the list of these verbs.

(a) (4) We have said enough already of can, may, shall, will, in another place. Ought was originally the past tense of owe, but is now used indefinitely as regards time; as, I ought now to go. When used to express past duty or obligation, it is followed by the perfect form of the infinitive—a use peculiar to itself; as, I ought to have gone there yesterday. With other verbs, when we do not intend to express the action indicated by the com pleting infinitive, as perfected, finished, we always use the simple infinitive: as, I intended To Go yesterday. Yesterday I determined TO SEND, &c.

(b) This verb is now out of use in the current language. It was formerly employed in a sense equivalent to "I think," "I imagine.”

(c) Wit is now only used in the phrase to wit. Both wit and wot are found in the translation of the Bible and in our earlier authors. Its meaning is equivalent to that of the word know.

§ 66. OF IMPERSONAL VERBS.-(1) There remains still another peculiar kind of verbs to consider; namely, those commonly called impersonal, but sometimes, perhaps more properly, unipersonal verbs. Of these verbs there are several distinct classes.

1st. (2) There are a few verbs, such as, It rains, It snows, It hails, &c., expressing natural phenomena or operations, of which men in the early ages did not understand the causes, and of which we could not, even in the present improved state of natural science, express the causes (which causes would naturally form the subject nouns of the above verbs) by a single term, or in any convenient way; while the phenomena or operations themselves are of common occurrence and of general interest, and therefore need to be expressed both substantively and assertively. (3) In English, we place before the verbs which express such operations the neuter pronoun IT, which here serves the peculiar function of representing, not a known noun, but a cause unknown, or that cannot be conveniently expressed every time we have occasion to express the natural phenomenon assertively. (4) These verbs admit of being conjugated, like other verbs, through all tenses, but only in the third person singular.

2d. (5) There is another class of what are commonly called impersonal verbs, which admit only of a proposition for their subject, and are therefore necessarily unipersonal. Only a few of these now remain in our language. (6) We have, though now rarely used, It behooves or behooveth, It irks or irketh, and perhaps some others. (7)

(4) Repeat what is said of the verb ought.

§ 66. (1) What kind of verbs remains to be considered, and how more properly named ? (2) Describe the first class of these verbs. (3) What word is usually placed before these verbs? Describe the function which it performs in this case.

(5) Describe another class of impersonal verbs. (6) Give examples. (7) Repeat what is said of other verbs employed in the same way.